Though this is funny:"The group suggested hiring as a spokesman an "extremely literate conservative African-American" who can argue that Mr. Obama misled the nation by presenting himself as what the proposal calls a "metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln.""

Setting aside for a moment the uselessness of both political parties, I think it should be perfectly legitimate to talk about Rev. Wright. Obama went to Rev. Wright's church for 20 years and happened to never notice what it was all about. Obama got a little heat for this in the dem primary but otherwise got a pass. People are having their social networking screened getting fired for saying even mildly un-PC online, so it seems like a big fat double standard to me. Why does the left get to dictate what is and what isn't a rhetorical no go area?

DUKENUK3M:Setting aside for a moment the uselessness of both political parties, I think it should be perfectly legitimate to talk about Rev. Wright. Obama went to Rev. Wright's church for 20 years and happened to never notice what it was all about. Obama got a little heat for this in the dem primary but otherwise got a pass. People are having their social networking screened getting fired for saying even mildly un-PC online, so it seems like a big fat double standard to me. Why does the left get to dictate what is and what isn't a rhetorical no go area?

"For the record, let's take a look at how the press "walked right past" the Wright story during the months of March and April 2008. Searching Nexis for television segments as well as newspaper columns and news article that mentioned Jeremiah Wright at least four times, here are were the number of matches during those two months:

DUKENUK3M:Setting aside for a moment the uselessness of both political parties, I think it should be perfectly legitimate to talk about Rev. Wright. Obama went to Rev. Wright's church for 20 years and happened to never notice what it was all about.

Guilt by association fallacy, since you can't back it up. Because what's far more important is that Obama left that church, and isn't proud and open about ever having been there.

Try finding that sort of grown-up thinking and behaviour among the republicans, lol.

Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. "George [Stephanopoulos]," fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is "being a disgusting little rat snake."

Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama's relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama's conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, "Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares - and call them racists."

Ackerman went on:

I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It's not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright's defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger's [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them - Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares - and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.

Yeah... this meme that correcting completely deceitful and incorrect attacks on Obama by partisans is proof that liberals worship Obama really needs to go by the wayside. It's not just crass, it's not just shockingly ignorant, but it really amounts to conservative self-sabotage. Now that Obama has been in office for a while and we all know what he's like, a lot of liberals are a bit disappointed in his record. They'll almost certainly vote for Obama because the alternatives this cycle have been almost laughably incompetent, verging on self-parody. But a savvy conservative who campaigned on a platform with widespread appeal could probably draw some of these disillusioned liberals to their side. This constant attempt to portray liberals as worshiping Obama only shows that the people trying to make the lie have traction have absolutely no concept what liberals tend to think like, and are so locked into their own little bubble that they cannot conceive of people thinking differently without attaching religious undertones.

But you know, I guess it feels good to denigrate everyone who disagrees with you as mindless cultists. And God knows, the right of some Americans to feel superior to other Americans is more important than campaigning for competent, responsible leadership.

DUKENUK3M:Setting aside for a moment the uselessness of both political parties, I think it should be perfectly legitimate to talk about Rev. Wright. Obama went to Rev. Wright's church for 20 years and happened to never notice what it was all about.

Guilt by association fallacy, since you can't back it up. Because what's far more important is that Obama left that church, and isn't proud and open about ever having been there.

Try finding that sort of grown-up thinking and behaviour among the republicans, lol.

Do you reject guilt by association categorically or only in defense of politicians that you like? Whatever your answer its besides the point, in popular politics there is a strong incentive to both avoid and take advantage of guilt by association. How effective this is a function of media power, which means that the left gets to make and break the rules.

Ah-ah. What you said was they "gave him a pass", not that a few journalists tried to kill the story.

Keep deflecting though, it's adorable the lengths you'll go to.

Does beg the question of whether the Republicans would be so willing to have Romney's Mormonism take front and centre. I mean, Obama's religion (Article from yesterday calling it into question) has been a constant thing for the GOP both before and during his Presidency.

Surely they're okay with Romney being fair game, right? I mean, to do otherwise would be...I dunno, politically correct?

Is "Metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln" supposed to be an insult or what? Because that sounds pretty cool, actually.

And I love that a big part of their plan is just "get a black guy to say it." Remember that guy a while back who got fired for writing a horribly racist article advising parents on how to act with their children around black people? Yeah, a point he made in that article was, essentially "keep an intelligent black person around to shield yourself against allegations of racism."

DUKENUK3M:Do you reject guilt by association categorically or only in defense of politicians that you like?

I reject it when it's the only accusation obviously. Find me some evidence that Obama himself hates homosexuals, discriminates, wants to overthrow democracy and whatever else it is that creepy priests want, and that changes.

But untill then, it's a lame attack on Obama.

It's a bit odd though. Romney is a member of a church that is very much okay with hatred against women, polygamy and child abuse, and they likely only oppose that now for the cameras because otherwise there'd be trouble. Yet Romney has been going to that church and goes there. Aren't you a little worked up about that?

Katatori-kun:Yeah... this meme that correcting completely deceitful and incorrect attacks on Obama by partisans is proof that liberals worship Obama really needs to go by the wayside. It's not just crass, it's not just shockingly ignorant, but it really amounts to conservative self-sabotage. Now that Obama has been in office for a while and we all know what he's like, a lot of liberals are a bit disappointed in his record.

I know that generally democrats do not regard Obama as messiah. I was looking for a handy way to summarize the HOW DARE THEY tone. It is espcially odd since what they were daring to do was highlight something that actually happenened.

DUKENUK3M:I was looking for a handy way to summarize the HOW DARE THEY tone.

You mean the one you imagined in your head?

It is espcially odd since what they were daring to do was highlight something that actually happenened.

That's the problem. The Super P.A.C. is not highlighting something that "happened". They're highlighting a personal relationship- and an apparently tenuous one at best.

An article that DUKENUK3M apparently didn't read:"The world is about to see Jeremiah Wright and understand his influence on Barack Obama for the first time in a big, attention-arresting way," says the proposal, which was overseen by Fred Davis and commissioned by Joe Ricketts, the founder of the brokerage firm TD Ameritrade. Mr. Ricketts is increasingly putting his fortune to work in conservative politics.

This isn't a thing that happened. They aren't critiquing an action of Obama's. They're inventing a narrative. They're manufacturing a story that there's some dark[1] secret influence in Obama's life that makes him hate America.

This is everything that is wrong with the American conservative movement at the moment. America needs answers. America needs policies that work. America needs leadership with a vision beyond "maintain the status quo" or "tax cuts for my rich buddies". And as long as conservatives are wasting their time and money trying to re-write the narrative rather than by driving it with a good leader, they will never provide the candidate America needs.

It's a bit odd though. Romney is a member of a church that is very much okay with hatred against women, polygamy and child abuse, and they likely only oppose that now for the cameras because otherwise there'd be trouble. Yet Romney has been going to that church and goes there. Aren't you a little worked up about that?

Hey, the Mormons have officially been against polygamy ever since the USA sent the army in to tell them it was Not Good back in the 1800s.